Abramoff’s Clients Spent $72 Million on Political Influence

How much of the money, as Sen. Frist said, is ‘tainted’?____________________

When Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to corruption charges, politicians rushed to dump contributions they had received from the high-flying lobbyist and the Indian tribes he admitted defrauding. The money was “tainted,” as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist put it. There was little mention, however, of Abramoff’s dozens of other clients and what the recipients planned to do with those clients’ political contributions.

“Any money that’s come in from any client (of Abramoff) I’m going to give back immediately—give it back to the client, because I want to have no part of it,” Frist said on the Jan. 29 edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”Frist got $59,000 from Abramoff clients, but he has only singled out $2,000 to return—money his political action committee received from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian tribe in Michigan.

What if Frist did what he said he would, and every recipient of a contribution from Jack Abramoff or one of his clients did the same? How many lawmakers would be writing refund checks? How much money would disappear from their campaign war chests?

In short, a lot.

According to a new analysis released today by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, Abramoff’s clients contributed at least $22 million to members of Congress and their political action committees, to candidates for federal office and to political parties.

Nearly 500 members of the 109th Congress received campaign contributions from a client of Jack Abramoff while he was their lobbyist—99 Senators and 384 members of the House of Representatives, the Center found. President Bush received more than $492,000 from Abramoff’s clients. Top congressional recipients in Congress included Bush’s 2004 opponent, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry ($270,000); House Speaker Dennis Hastert ($168,000), former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ($141,000) and Washington Sen. Patty Murray ($263,000). (All dollar figures are approximate.)

Unlike Abramoff himself, who along with his wife contributed $225,000 of their personal money to Republicans only, his clients were less partisan in their political contributions. While some gave almost exclusively to one party, on average they gave about 60 percent of their money to Republicans and the remainder to Democrats.

The campaign contributions were in addition to what Abramoff’s clients paid him and the firms he worked for to lobby Congress and the executive branch. More than $50 million was spent on lobbying, according to the Center’s tally—in all, $72 million of political influence.

The non-partisan research organization had previously examined campaign contributions made mostly by Abramoff and the Indian tribes he represented—$3.7 million in all. This latest, broader analysis using campaign finance and lobbying records examined all his clients from 1998, when disclosure of lobbying became more transparent, through the end of 2004, when revelations of Abramoff’s activities effectively ended his career as one of K Street’s most influential lobbyists. The full report, “Casting Off Abramoff,” is available through CRP’s online newsletter, CapitalEye.org.

All of the contributions—including those from the Indian tribes—appear to be legal, which underscores the political nature of the recipients’ decisions to get rid of money from some donors but not others. Some politicians apparently determined that the Indian tribes’ money was tainted, but decided that contributions from other clients seeking to influence them were not.

What also becomes more clear through this latest review is how widespread the reach of a single lobbyist can be if he represents politically generous clients. Campaign finance law limits how much individuals and political action committees can give to federal candidates. Since the individual “fat cat” donor is a thing of the past, raising smaller contributions from clients has become part of the job description for many lobbyists along Washington’s fabled K Street and has made well-connected lobbyists like Abramoff all the more influential.

“When a lobbyist tells a politician he can raise money for them, he’s saying he can do the legwork so his client can get the credit. In return, the lobbyist and his clients bank on the lawmaker listening to what they have to say, ” CRP Research Director Sheila Krumholz said. “When you consider how many clients some lobbyists raise money for, you begin to see how someone like Jack Abramoff can become so powerful.”

As the Department of Justice’s investigation quietly continues, it’s unclear whether other clients will come under similar scrutiny. Already, a number have become embroiled in the investigation of Abramoff and his associates:

·The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands routinely hosted congressional visitors Abramoff sent their way, including Tom DeLay and his family. The American protectorate paid for the tropical trips, but documents suggest Abramoff violated ethics rules for lobbyists by picking up at least some of the tab. In political contributions, Abramoff’s clients in the Marianas—the islands’ government and the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association—contributed about $4,200 to politicians.

·Abramoff reportedly directed Magazine Publishers of America, a trade association that made approximately $202,000 in contributions, and Internet lottery client eLottery to donate $25,000 each to a conservative advocacy group in Washington State. The money was then used to pay a consulting fee for the wife of a DeLay aide.

·Abramoff lobbied for SunCruz Casinos before he bought the offshore gaming company. He admitted defrauding lenders by faking a wire transfer that inflated the apparent value of his investment, and has been sentenced to nearly six years in prison. SunCruz contributed $28,500 to politicians, including $4,000 to Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio, who inserted a favorable mention of the company into the Congressional Record.

The Abramoff analysis is the first project to integrate the Center for Responsive Politics’ Campaign Finance Database with its new Lobbying Database, recently launched online at the organization’s award-winning website, OpenSecrets.org. The free site aims to be the most comprehensive and easy-to-use database of its kind online, providing users with detailed views of federal lobbying sorted in a variety of informative ways.

Since CRP’s founding in 1983, the organization has become known as a non-partisan authority on the influence of money on policy and elections—who gives money and why they might be giving it. Support for CRP comes from a combination of foundation grants and individual contributions.

Media Contact

Viveca Novak
(202) 354-0111
press@crp.org

Search

Archives

Categories

Count Cash & Make Change.

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and
public policy. Whether you're a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen,
use our free site to shine light on your government.